|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2007 : 19:07:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
...There shouldn't be any problem with walking up to someone like Bidlack (for example) and saying, "I disagree completely with your ideas about god, but welcome wholeheartedly your skeptical skills in other areas of human inquiry." If the recipient of such a greeting takes umbrage at not having their sacred cow treated with kid gloves, then it's their choice to take their ball and go home. There's a big difference between tolerance and coddling, and I'll have none of the latter. |
I agree wholeheartedly.
I realized, after reading your reply, that my post gave the impression that I was addressing you, Dave W., personally (perhaps because I quoted you, then addressed you personally in the first sentence). After that first sentence, I had intended the "you" to be inclusive of the "hard-line skeptic" group. H. Humbert, for example, would be included in this group.
Anyway, back to the topic: | No, we've already determined that they are incompatible, in that hard-nosed logic and empiricism tells us that the answer to "is there a god?" can only be "I don't know." Believing despite that result is nothing more than the capitulation of your skepticism in that one subject. |
That is not the only acceptable answer. How about "I don't know, but I believe so" as an alternative? How about "I don't know, but I think not" as another alternative? |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 19:11:52 [Permalink]
|
(All quotes here taken from marfknox) | I agree that most of them are tolerant, but I think that is only because they are such a small minority they don't have any power. |
So we New Atheists are just biding our time, waiting for when we are the majority, and can reveal our true agenda and start oppressing the religious? That's close to paranoia, IMO. Marf, in European countries where atheists and agnostics are now the majority, that's not happening.
| And many of them do proselytize, such as the Rational Response Squad that makes conversion their mission. |
And that, by you, is a bad thing? Proselytizing is reserved only for the religious? (BTW, I support the right of the religious to proselytize, so long as they don't use government funding or facilities to do so. I'd expect the same separation of church and state limits to be put on atheist proselytizing.)
| Theism is a "time-proven danger" only in the same way that alcohol is. |
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
| Taslima Nasrin has been publicly quoted as saying that churches and mosques should be banned. Granted, her extreme atheism stems from years of childhood abuse in a fanatically Muslim household and culture. I tend not to worry too much about what she says because it is so extreme that I don't think hardly anyone takes it to heart. |
Okay, you found one, whose extreme position I was unaware of. But even you don't take her seriously on that, as a threat to religious expression. Meanwhile, as I pointed out earlier, you have already stated that the New Atheists are presently acting tolerant "... only because they are such a small minority they don't have any power." The dirty, sneaky, crypto-fascist bastards.
| But it does worry me when she and others I've met say such things. |
Do you know any other contemporary intolerant atheists who are in the public limelight?
| Any movement based on a worldview which is purported to be better for everyone and that doesn't explicitly make pluralism and tolerance integrated parts of its values is likely to become abusive if it gains power. |
I think you are mistaken about what the New Atheists are saying, and thus mischaracterize them. They want to win over most people to critical thinking, for the sake of our future society. They don't want to persecute religions. Religious persecutions are mainly done by religions.
| That's why I get so upset when I see some kid with a T-shirt that touts the Rational Response motto: "Believe in God? We can fix that." |
I love that slogan. I'm baffled as to why you would oppose criticizing something you say you disbelieve in.
| I've heard some people argue that it is good to have the more extreme atheist viewpoint because it sets us moderates apart, but I don't know if I buy that considering that I doubt most people know that most atheists are moderates and don't give a damn what peoples' personal religious beliefs are. |
Can you give evidence that "moderate" atheists (atheists who know their place and cause no fuss?) are the majority? The swift growth of the New Atheism would seem to argue against this conclusion.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 02:39:08 [Permalink]
|
| No, we've already determined that they are incompatible, in that hard-nosed logic and empiricism tells us that the answer to "is there a god?" can only be "I don't know." |
Is there anyone here who can honestly state when asked if Zeus, or Jehovah/Allah or Hercules exist that the answer is "I don't know?"
There is no doubt that these are human creations. Might there be some "mystery" as Martha has stated as a "religious" position? Sure. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 03:13:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
| No, we've already determined that they are incompatible, in that hard-nosed logic and empiricism tells us that the answer to "is there a god?" can only be "I don't know." |
Is there anyone here who can honestly state when asked if Zeus, or Jehovah/Allah or Hercules exist that the answer is "I don't know?"
There is no doubt that these are human creations. Might there be some "mystery" as Martha has stated as a "religious" position? Sure.
|
Well, there is, technically, some infinitesimal chance that Zeus is a real god, in that this vanishingly tiny possibility is immune to direct disproof. That's why Dawkins says that in this limited sense he's a technical agnostic philosophically, though he's clearly a strong atheist practically speaking. (He also thinks that a scientific disproof of god may be possible in the future.)
To me, the difference between an infinitesimal likelihood of a deity and no chance at all is hardly worth getting heated up about, and not convincing enough to even consider Pascal's disingenuous Gambit.
If someone says space aliens visit earth, I would think the possibility would be far more likely than a god's existence. Yet I would not so much as consider that it was true, without firm proof.
I'll just say, "there are no gods," and live comfortably with the infinitely unlikely possibility I could be wrong. The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim, and no claim is more extraordinary than that of a god.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/30/2007 03:15:25 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 04:19:47 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote: | I think the faulty assumption here is that there is such a thing as a "pure skeptic". I agree with Dave that as soon as you put belief in something you don't have sufficient evidence for, you are not following the principles of a skeptic. However, everyone does that, probably so often it's really not a big deal. It's just when you do it too much that it becomes a problem. |
IMO it becomes a problem (in a practical sense) not so much when you do it too much as when you do it about certain things.
| For example, I myself have a weird thing about seat belts. When I get into a car, I think to myself, "You know, if I don't wear my seat belt this time, I'll probably end up being in an accident." I know that is absolutely absurd, but I still think it anyways. |
Heh, heh... I had a friend who refused to wear seatbelts 'cause he read some study that said people who wear seatbelts tend to get in accidents at a slightly higher rate than those who don't. Presumably, the ones not wearing seatbelts are being more careful and the ones wearing them have a false sense of security. Incidentally, all of my friend's friends thought he was being an idiot. Even if he was slightly lowering his chance of getting into an accident, if he got into one, he's obviously be more likely to survive if he wears a seatbelt. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/30/2007 04:34:07 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 04:32:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ricky wrote: | I think the faulty assumption here is that there is such a thing as a "pure skeptic". I agree with Dave that as soon as you put belief in something you don't have sufficient evidence for, you are not following the principles of a skeptic. However, everyone does that, probably so often it's really not a big deal. It's just when you do it too much that it becomes a problem. |
IMO it becomes a problem (in a practical sense) not so much when you do it too much as when you do it about certain things.
| For example, I myself have a weird thing about seat belts. When I get into a car, I think to myself, "You know, if I don't wear my seat belt this time, I'll probably end up being in an accident." I know that is absolutely absurd, but I still think it anyways. |
Heh, heh... I had a friend who refused to wear seatbelts 'cause he read some study that said people who wear seatbelts tend to get in accidents at a slightly higher rate than those who don't. Presumably, the ones not wearing seatbelts are being more careful and the ones wearing them have a false sense of security. Incidentally, all of my friend's friends thought he was being an idiot. Even if he was slightly lowering his chance of getting into an accident, if he got into one, he's obviously be more likely to survive if he wore a seatbelt.
|
Funny, Marf! Per seatbelts, I was lucky in that my father retrofitted the family cars with belts years before they were required. So I grew up feeling naked without 'em. In fact, I even kept a construction helmet in the car when I was a teen, to wear for added safety. But I was a nerd, after all.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 06:06:38 [Permalink]
|
I'll just say, "there are no gods," and live comfortably with the infinitely unlikely possibility I could be wrong. The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim, and no claim is more extraordinary than that of a god.
|
We have lots of evidence that people make such stories up, and that what people believe about the supernatural just ain't so. Once a god is well defined, we have more evidence against such things.
Bidlack, if I remember correctly, I heard him speak a while ago, simply says that he has no evidence, and is not trying to convince anyone else. I think this is worth a longer conversation with him. What is "belief" to him? How does this "belief" change his life? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 08/30/2007 07:32:22 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 07:44:55 [Permalink]
|
| I had a friend who refused to wear seatbelts 'cause he read some study that said people who wear seatbelts tend to get in accidents at a slightly higher rate than those who don't. |
I don't know how well documented or well studied the Peltzman Effect is, but it's not a good reason to avoid seat belts, as far as I know, and Peltzman himself recommends wearing seat belts.
Truth Driven Thinking interview with Sam Peltzman
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 08/30/2007 07:47:50 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 08:28:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by me.
It's a conflict that he must deal with. He doesn't need us to tell him that it's not rational to believe in God. He is, after all, a critical thinker. |
H. Humbert:
I disagree. I understand the practicality of big tent politics, kil, but usually with skeptics when one person asks for a "pass" on a certain subject, others only agree to it when they need a "pass" themselves on some other topic. |
Where do you get that? Bidlack is very high up in the Randi organization. What sort of pass do you imagine Randi is looking for? Or me for that matter? And what pass has Bidlack been granted?
That he still gets to be a skeptic? Well, he is a skeptic. Now it may be argued that upon his reflections he chose to stick with a faith in God that most of us wouldn't even consider. And as skeptics we can question that. What we shouldn't do, in my opinion, is single that out, yell foul, and ignore his contributions to our cause.
I'll say it again, if what he brings to the table on the important issues that face us in our efforts to bring us to a more reasonable and rational world is reasonable and rational, even for the most part, I will not press my disagreement with him over his personal choice to be irrational in this one area, which is something that he is aware of.
You are looking for a negative reason for why I would allow such a thing. You're suggesting a personal defect in me, some irrational belief that I may hold to justify why I would throw Bidlack a pass.
But I have said, over and over why I would, and what my criteria is for allowing for people to hold a personal belief that in my opinion would not stand up to skeptical inquiry. Suggesting that those of us who are looking at the bigger picture are being disingenuous is bullshit. I'm looking for those who can contribute to a larger cause.
And I am willing to not agree and to leave behind personal matters that are of little consequence to get us there.
And I will go one step further. A person of faith is much more likely than a bunch of atheists to attract other people of faith to the understanding that science is the best tool we have to understand how our world works. So from a purely practical standpoint, we need people like Hal Bidlack and Kenneth Miller in the battle for reason.
Be a purist if you like. I am. And it is exactly my commitment to reason that leads me see the bigger picture. The one that seems to elude you.
Edited.
My my, I can't even follow this post. Had to rush it to get to work. Edited again...
And again...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 19:17:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
I realized, after reading your reply, that my post gave the impression that I was addressing you, Dave W., personally (perhaps because I quoted you, then addressed you personally in the first sentence). |
Why yes, I did get that impression.  | After that first sentence, I had intended the "you" to be inclusive of the "hard-line skeptic" group. H. Humbert, for example, would be included in this group. |
I'm not sure that H. is as much of a hard-liner as he seems. I think he's dropping qualifiers in favor of brevity.| That is not the only acceptable answer. How about "I don't know, but I believe so" as an alternative? |
Why? What logical and/or empirical foundation is there for "I believe so?" If the basis for adding that clause is emotional, then skepticism has been left behind (which is my point).| How about "I don't know, but I think not" as another alternative? |
A similar question applies to this formulation. What logic and/or evidence justifies dropping the statistical chance of a god existing to exactly zero?
That said, there's "I don't know, but since there's no evidence for one, I'm going to act as if there is no god." This is pragmatic atheism. It recognizes the non-zero possibility of there being something like a god somewhere, and also acknowledges the futility of guessing from within the echoing void of clues. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 20:39:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | The question was, "is skepticism compatible with religion?" The answer is still "no," because the only logically defensible position on the god question is "I don't know." The answer, "I don't know, but I believe anyway" is a position that requires compartmentalization. |
If I am to agree with this, then I suppose I must admit that I do not think this kind of compartmentalization is dangerous at all. |
There are, of course, different kinds and degrees of compartmentalization, and like the ability that humans possess for flying into muderous rages, I find the potential for inappropriate compartmentalization to be what's truly dangerous.| He appears to refuse to bring his armament of critical thinking skills to the subject (and in fact rejects their use there), and so doesn't engage in skepticism with regard to his faith, no matter how much he might doubt. |
I still think he does apply it, he just can't get his heart to agree with his head. That is what I mean by belief not being a choice, only actions based on beliefs are a choice. Since Bidlack would never act against what is provable fact based on what his heart alone tells him, I regard him as fully a skeptic. I think this is where you and I disagree. |
The goals of criticial thinking, logic and skepticism are to eliminate our emotional biases, desires, instincts and the like from our evaluation of "truth." If you're saying that you think Bidlack can't let go of his emotions with regards to this subject, then you're effectively telling me that he cannot apply proper skepticism to it.| But Bidlack is being held up as an example of faith being compatible with skepticism, and he seems to be going along with that premise. |
Perhaps this is a semantics problem over the word "compatible". If a Jew marries a Muslim, they are compatible, even if both remain true to their personal religious beliefs. |
Perhaps you should have picked an example that didn't involve an incompatibility only when one party or both are fundamentalists. Jews and Muslims both worship the God of Abraham, after all, and there are plenty of both who would peacefully co-exist if the radicals were all suddenly transported to Venus.| So if Bidlack's deism isn't compatible with his skepticism, what would you call his peacefully holding on to both? |
Using a welder's glove, I can peacefully hold onto a burning charcoal briquette and an ice cube at the same time. That doesn't of course, mean they are compatible, since if I were to let them get into close proximity, one would melt and/or the other fizzle. By keeping the ice cube in one hand and the charcoal in the other, I have compartmentalized them so that they don't conflict. I rather liked my earlier cat-and-mouse analogy, too, since the cat-proof mouse cage is a more concrete example of compartmentalizing.
Say you've got two kids in class who are getting on each other's nerves, to the point where you think things might get violent. Sending them to opposite sides of the room compartmentalizes them. They can still both be in the same class, learning the same stuff, they just can't sit near each other ("he's touching me!").| But what Bidlack seems to be doing - and what other people are definitely doing - is embracing this wrong idea. I have a problem with that. |
What kind of "problem" do you have with it? What do you mean it is a problem? It doesn't seem to be any kind of problem for him, so why is it a problem for you? Fundamentalist trying to get Creationism taught in public schools is a problem for me 'cause it affects the public interest. I don't think personal and humble religious beliefs, tempered by skepticism, are a problem for anyone in any practical and tangible sense, so what is the point of calling them a "problem"? |
I have a problem with anyone who embraces a demonstrably wrong idea. Again, it is the potential for real danger that worries me. Bidlack's faith may be a harmless idea, but there are only degrees of difference between him and the fundamentalists. They aren't entirely different creatures, because the fundies have simply embraced many more wrong ideas than Bidlack has, most of which - taken individually - would be harmless too. Actually, thinking about it, Christian fundamentalism may represent the "Perfect Storm" of hundreds of harmless wrong ideas coalescing into a huge, terrifying mass of ugliness.
Besides, carrying wrong ideas around in one's head - no matter how harmless - is a waste of a valuable resource. As skeptics, we should be seeking to minimize them amongst ourselves, and be open to accepting correction on our own wrong ideas. And a skeptical activist should be seeking to minimize wrong ideas held by anyone - again, no matter how harmless (actually, if we skeptics stopped to debate how harmful some idea might be before speaking out against it, we'd do little but that).| The assertion that skepticism is not compatible with faith should raise (and should have raised) no more of a fuss than the assertion that skepticism is not compatible with HIV/AIDS denial, or ancient astronauts, or lizard people running the government, or any other unevidenced belief. |
Ah! Okay, so you are fighting for what you see as accuracy. I still think this largely boils down to semantics, but the way you are clearly meaning things, I think I might actually agree with you whole-heartedly. |
Well, let's see if the above makes things more clear or more muddy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 21:06:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
| No, we've already determined that they are incompatible, in that hard-nosed logic and empiricism tells us that the answer to "is there a god?" can only be "I don't know." |
Is there anyone here who can honestly state when asked if Zeus, or Jehovah/Allah or Hercules exist that the answer is "I don't know?" |
"A god," not a specific god.
I personally hope that Joe, the beer-swilling, Internet-surfing god turns out to be the One True God, 'cause he would definitely forgive all my trespasses in light of the fact that I've so closely followed his teachings. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 21:10:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I don't know how well documented or well studied the Peltzman Effect is, but it's not a good reason to avoid seat belts, as far as I know, and Peltzman himself recommends wearing seat belts. |
Off topic, but I saw a Discovery Channel show on driving risks, and the host said that to minimize automotive injuries and deaths, airbags should be replaced with big steel spikes pointed at drivers' chests. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 21:10:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
But if one is not trying to convince others of, then personal experiences can indeed count. For example, if I was visited by extraterrestrials and was completely conscious the entire time, and I saw things I knew we didn't not have the technological ability to do (short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem would suffice), then I would find it difficult if not impossible to not believe aliens have visited our planet. |
Why wouldn't you seek alternate explanations, such as a hypnagogic state colored by popular conceptions? Part of being a skeptic is doubting that your own experiences happened exactly as you experienced them. Just because I feel like there is a ghost in the room doesn't mean there is a ghost in the room. When you "just know with all your heart" something is true, that's when your most likely to be wrong, and a skeptic is supposed to realize that.
Now, granted, hypothetically there could be a scenario where an individual is granted some sort of iron-clad personal proof of some phenomenon that for whatever reason can't ever be replicated or shared. However, I guarantee you that in practice this never occurs with theists. Often, intelligent theists are reluctant to share the circumstances of their "illumination," since deep down they know it to be quite flimsy evidence. On some level they know they are engaging in wishful thinking, they just don't want to admit it. Or maybe they really aren't aware, and in that case I believe it's our responsibility to tell/remind them. I mean between wishful thinking, selective thinking, the placebo effect, self-deception, subjective validation, etc. a skeptic should have more reason to doubt his or her own experiences than anyone else. Read my sig. It's no accident that Richard Feynman said the first rule to critical thinking/the scientific method is "though shalt not fool thyself." I find it almost inconceivable that a skeptic could ever ignore this cardinal rule and still consider themselves a good skeptic.
| Would I expect any other person to believe this? Absolutely not. But it was my personal experience, and I can't just ignore that. |
Ricky, you should know better. No skeptic would ever ask you to ignore an experience. We would just caution you not to accept it at face value.
| Skepticism does not apply to everything. To paraphrase Sagan, one should not be skeptical of the abc's. |
There are certain things which we cannot prove but which we must accept on pragmatic grounds. Really, really basic things, like that there is an external reality and we can perceive it, although imperfectly. That there exists other consciousnesses besides our own, etc. But beyond that, you're free to be skeptical of anything which you think needs questioning. We don't question the ABCs because there is no practical value to doing so. But Sagan's lesson wasn't that we could choose to avoid being skeptical about anything we wished. Recall that another one of his more famous phrases was "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The ABCs hardly qualifies as an extraordinary claim, since it isn't even a claim at all. It's just a symbolic representation of the sounds we humans make. However, the idea that a human can know or intuit or sense in any manner the existence of an all-powerful creator of the universe which resides outside of it and is invisible to all attempts at empirical detection? Yeah, that's about as extraordinary as they come.
| You can believe in something without evidence and not be irrational, so long as your realize that it is in fact belief without evidence. |
No, that's only having the self-awareness to realize you are being irrational. It doesn't actually change your behavior to rational, however. People suffering from OCD will often realize that having to touch a light switch 17 times before turning it on is not a sane thing to do, but they feel compelled to do it anyway.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Skepticism Compatible with Belief in God?
